Quote of the Day: Pythagoras on Beans

 

“Abstain from beans.” — Pythagoras of Samos

Pythagoras has a reputation as having been a somewhat odd dude. Perhaps a charlatan, perhaps a thaumaturge. One thing that many sources say is that he urged his followers to abstain from beans. About a thousand years ago when I was in school, it was explained to me that he did this because the Ancients believed that beans gathered spirits of the dead, and this is why they created gas, because the spirit was the breath.

A much more interesting explanation I ran across much later was that voting was done with beans, so by saying “Abstain from beans,” what Pythagoras meant was, “Stay away from politics.” Well, who could argue with that?

Published in History
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 67 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Also the prototypical western anti-materialist philosopher.

    No, it wasn’t Plato.

    Plato got his anti-materialism from Pythagoras.

    Also, mathematical realism is a cool theory

    Like you I’ve always wondered the same question. “Is three real?”

    It’s always been surprising to me that no one seems to have tried to answer it. Look at all of the man-hours society has expended on philosopher labor to get just this simple answer, which could have been spent on making our fake shutters look wide enough to cover the windows on our houses, or producing any of a number of other currently missing economic goods. (I was just mentioning the first currently missing economic good that popped into my mind. I’m not compulsive about shutters or anything.)

    Hume and Kant didn’t really seem to be interested much. They offered answers but didn’t bother to give any particular reason for them that I’m aware of.

    To answer “is three real?” a person and his listener would obviously have to agree on what that means.

    (Wouldn’t it would be silly for a philosopher try to prove to someone else that “all the sets for this weekend’s big show have been completed” if the other person is thinking that that means that “all of the games required for a complete tennis match have been completed”? I mean, come on!)

    For a philosopher and his reader to agree on what “is three real?” means, obviously they’d first have to agree on the answer to “how can we tell if something is real?”, and then the philosopher would simply show that “three” met that criterion.

    Or maybe they did bother, and I just didn’t catch it. But you would have, since this is your line of work, so I am back to: they never bothered to try to answer the question seriously.

    So it just seems odd, like we’ve given up a lot of halfway decent fake shutters, and almost of the houses in the country look like crap, with nothing to show for it.

    But some philosophers have looked very seriously and carefully at this question.

    Cool! How do we determine if something is real according to them?

    Well, the ones who’ve looked very seriously and carefully would presumably be the sort described at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/.

    I.e., for the most part at least, people I haven’t really studied.

    But I’m a mathematical realist.  I think we can determine that something is real by observing that nothing makes much sense without it–common-sense epistemology following Thomas Reid.

    • #61
  2. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Also the prototypical western anti-materialist philosopher.

    No, it wasn’t Plato.

    Plato got his anti-materialism from Pythagoras.

    Also, mathematical realism is a cool theory

    Like you I’ve always wondered the same question. “Is three real?”

    It’s always been surprising to me that no one seems to have tried to answer it. Look at all of the man-hours society has expended on philosopher labor to get just this simple answer, which could have been spent on making our fake shutters look wide enough to cover the windows on our houses, or producing any of a number of other currently missing economic goods. (I was just mentioning the first currently missing economic good that popped into my mind. I’m not compulsive about shutters or anything.)

    Hume and Kant didn’t really seem to be interested much. They offered answers but didn’t bother to give any particular reason for them that I’m aware of.

    To answer “is three real?” a person and his listener would obviously have to agree on what that means.

    (Wouldn’t it would be silly for a philosopher try to prove to someone else that “all the sets for this weekend’s big show have been completed” if the other person is thinking that that means that “all of the games required for a complete tennis match have been completed”? I mean, come on!)

    For a philosopher and his reader to agree on what “is three real?” means, obviously they’d first have to agree on the answer to “how can we tell if something is real?”, and then the philosopher would simply show that “three” met that criterion.

    Or maybe they did bother, and I just didn’t catch it. But you would have, since this is your line of work, so I am back to: they never bothered to try to answer the question seriously.

    So it just seems odd, like we’ve given up a lot of halfway decent fake shutters, and almost of the houses in the country look like crap, with nothing to show for it.

    But some philosophers have looked very seriously and carefully at this question.

    Cool! How do we determine if something is real according to them?

    Well, the ones who’ve looked very seriously and carefully would presumably be the sort described at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/.

    I.e., for the most part at least, people I haven’t really studied.

    But I’m a mathematical realist. I think we can determine that something is real by observing that nothing makes much sense without it–common-sense epistemology following Thomas Reid.

    “Nothing unreal exists.”

    • #62
  3. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Arahant (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bean burritos !

    It’s not just a matter of protein, it’s a matter of complete proteins. So, beans and corn (maize) are complimentary. Same with most other grains and potatoes. (It has been sixteen years since I was a vegetarian and had to worry about it, so I nearly forgot the combos.) They all have some amino acids, but are not complete. Thus, one needs to compliment them. Beans and most other grains also work, but corn and potatoes are missing one of the amino acids.

    If you punch these various foods into a nutritional calculator, it becomes clear that the “food combining” idea is not necessary.  One could eat Quinoa and broccoli (as an example) and get more than enough of each of the essential amino acids.

    Nutritional calculators like Fit Day or the Cronometer are good ones.

    In other words, you don’t need to stress about essential amino acids because if you did decide to look it up, you’d notice that pretty much every food available in the United States has all of the essential amino acids.

    Just don’t try to live off a single food all by itself.  Don’t go on an all grape diet or an all apple diet.

    I imagine most people, vegetarian or not, are not tempted to eat only a single food.  And our bodies can store these essential amino acids, so that adequate amounts of each are available to the body when they are needed.

    The American obsession with protein is actually bad for our health because it persuades Americans to eat fewer fruits and vegetables than they would eat if they didn’t stress about protein so much.

    Americans get much more protein in their diets than their body really needs.  And when vegetarians are studied, even they get more protein than they need.

    Fiber, on the other hand, is something that well over 90 percent of Americans do not get enough of in their diets.  My father had to get part of his colon removed when he was in his 50s because it got infected.  A diet with adequate fiber would have prevented this.

    • #63
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Fiber, on the other hand, is something that well over 90 percent of Americans do not get enough of in their diets.

    Tell me about it. Having celiac disease and allergies to several grains, fiber is my biggest dietary concern. Figs, dates, and prunes are a major part of my diet, as are vegetables.

    • #64
  5. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    You all are missing the point.  I learned a different “beans and Pythagorus” story in medical school.  This was the theory that Pythagorus had G6-PD deficiency, a genetic defect that can cause hemolysis if one ingests fava beans.  My professor, Achilles Pappano (I am NOT making this up!) claimed that Pythagorus was chased into the field of fava beans and that their pollen led to an episode of hemolysis which proved fatal.

    One recognizes the difficulty of proving such a theory.  Indeed, one commentator seems to have debunked it.

    https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2016/12/pythagoras-and-beans-2-why-ban-beans.html

    It would not be hard, however, for a philosopher to recognize that some people in his society were sickened by these beans and so to eschew and ban their use.

     

    • #65
  6. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    Why does a tradition pot of Boston Baked Beans have exactly 239 beans?

    Because otherwise it would be two-forty.

    • #66
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Arahant (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    These days, instead of “group” or “faction” you’re supposed to say “tribe.”

    I don’t know that branch of mathematics. Tribe theory? Never heard of it. Group theory, though, is exciting stuff.

    Tribe Theory is based in Singapore. The math doesn’t sound particularly exciting, though.   

    • #67
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.